Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

The Canonicity of Genuineness.

While Semler's criticism, founded on moral insight or "supernatural rationalism," threatened dissolution to the canon from within, another impulse towards the same catastrophe was unwittingly given by several well meant but unavailing efforts to prop the falling edifice without. The advocates of the "Canonicity of Genuineness," already alluded to as one of the haunting phantasms of an exploded theory, endeavoured, according to the general method of "rational supernaturalism," to reinstate the "fides divina" through the "fides humana," by appealing to external testimonies of date and authorship. "Christianity," it was said, "remains true, if it be shewn that its records are genuine and trustworthy. Supposing the books to have been written, as they undoubtedly were, by apostles or eye-witnesses, the character and opportunities of the witnesses guarantee the accuracy of the facts, and from the proved accuracy of the facts the divine character of the doctrine is a necessary inference." Attention was thus concentrated on purely human considerations; the claim was one fairly challenging refutation, in which criticism seemed to have at last established itself on its proper ground. "The question as to inspiration," said Michaelis, "is far less important than that of genuineness. Where are we to find a reliable test of inspiration? the so-called 'inner witness' is as little to be relied on as tradition. I am unconscious of having ever felt this witness myself, and have no reason to believe that they who profess to do so are more fortunate or nearer to the truth." Admitting inspiration in the Apostles, three books at least in the New Testament, those of Mark and Luke, are confessedly not apostolic; of others, as the Apocalypse, James, and Jude, the authorship is doubtful. And if, as alleged to be the case in the Gospels, there appear to be differences and contradictions which no harmonising efforts can reconcile,

the claim of inspiration then becomes a burthen and a snare, a claim not only useless but dangerous; indeed, such alleged contradictions have always been the most formidable weapon of the infidel, as in fact they formed a prominent argument of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments. In this view wė gain rather than lose by admitting fallibility in the Evangelists; and thus Michaelis, in the fourth edition of his above-named "Introduction," found it expedient to advocate a compromise, and while reserving inspiration in the apostolical Epistles, to deny it in the historical books. But concession was not to be held within this arbitrary limit. For what could be the value of a distinction destitute of an intrinsic mark, and capriciously confined on ground of convenience alone to certain parts of Scripture? The whole theory evidently totters in the hands of Michaelis, who treats it reluctantly and apologetically, and says in reference to his first edition published in 1750, "We knew not then what we now know, and were comparatively speaking children.”

Indeed the whole position of theology was an extremely critical one. The neological movement being too strong and universal to be met by unyielding denial, concession was resorted to on one side in order to enable the supernaturalist to defend himself more effectually on another. The rights of criticism were allowed, but grudgingly and sparingly ; and even on the precarious footing of a maimed and suspected authenticity an exceptional character was still vaguely claimed for the New Testament writings. In Haenlein's "Introduction" (A.D. 1794) the problem of inspiration, reduced by Michaelis to a minimum, disappears altogether; but so much the greater stress is laid on genuineness and authenticity; and thus a spectral canonicity continues to shelter a large portion of the prejudices which so long retarded criticism. Old preoccupations survive in the apologetic tone assumed, and the one-sided overbearing manner in which the argument is conducted.

We find it confidently asserted that in all the usually accepted Scriptures no indication of a later age or different author is to be found; that all bear the unmistakeable trace of the times to which tradition ascribes them; that the writers lived in the first century; that they were by birth and religion Jews, mostly Galilæans, all except one unlearned, but of diversified characters; all if not immediate eye-witnesses, at least cotemporaries of Jesus. The writings, it is added, perfectly agree with these suppositions. The alleged contradictions, anomalies, etc., are either no contradictions at all, or else only the more confirm the good faith and perfect simplicity of the writers, since a forger would have taken good care to avoid such blemishes; and to have successfully passed off any or all as genuine when they were not so would have required an incredible mixture of wisdom and virtue with stupidity and wickedness, as well as an absolutely impossible concurrence of favourable circumstances. Intentional fraud is not to be thought of; and the fidelity thus assumed as morally certain is confirmed by citing testimonies as to the fact, and as to the general belief of the church accordingly. In short, the argument is partly assumed, partly of too vague and indefinite a character to be readily At the same time a large portion of these random over-confident assertions was retracted and self-refuted by conceding the existence of "Antilegomena;" i.e., books whose apostolic origin, in spite of their ostensible position in the Canon, was admitted to be fairly questionable. What availed it to hazard the desperate pretension that no ancient records whatever can be compared for a moment in regard to authenticity with the transcendent preeminence of these writings,-to claim every excellence of mind and heart for the holy penmen, as virtually if not literally inspired, when at the same time it was impossible in special instances to conceal the well grounded suspicion that many of the included documents vary in style and

met.

other circumstances from those of their supposed authors, and either did not exist at all in the earliest Christian age, or only under different and imperfect forms? But though in regard to several books these misgivings could not be entirely suppressed, still the confidence of the apologist in presence of a sympathising audience was not to be daunted, and it was pathetically urged that after all "Hebrews" is not so very unpaulinic; that the 2nd Peter might still prove to be genuine; and as to the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of John,-how difficult, nay how monstrous to assert they are not John's!1

Eichhorn.

While the facts would be thus easily assumed, and misgiving was either silent or overborne by confident assertion, it was obviously impossible to reap any great advantage from having made the Scripture problem an historical one, and the opportunity of argumentative treatment remained practically valueless. A fairer and more manly tone of criticism began with Eichhorn. He was the first among professional theologians to deal with Scripture freely on the footing of a mere literary work. He remarks in the preface to his " Introduction" that, whereas the lower criticism of the New Testament as left by Mill, Bengel, and others, might be regarded as nearly complete, the higher, which had to apply the data so provided, had scarcely commenced. With an impartiality unseen since the time of Spinoza, he united in an eminent degree the other qualifications of a critic; and his "Introduction " opens a new era especially in this respect, that instead of commencing as heretofore with an ideal theory about the Canon anticipating the facts, and assuming a general

1 See Haenlein's "Introduction," cited by Baur, Tübingen Journal, vol. ix., pp. 540, 542.

character interfering with the view naturally suggested by the phenomena, he begins inductively with special enquiries as to particular books, so as to get a safe basis for general inferences; and while reserving a generally divine element in Scripture, he makes the human agencies so prominent that, instead of pursuing an ignis fatuus of supernaturalism which vanishes on approach, we are made to feel our real business to be with the substance of the writings as given, i.e., as modified by the peculiar individualities of the writers, and as amenable to the same rules as other books. Hence his solemn apostrophe to the Bible writers," However great my respect for ye, ye holy men, never let me fall into the superstitious idolatry already deprecated by yourselves, or deem it irreverent to submit your productions to the strictest rules of human criticism!"

Instead of the careless and impudent assertion of modern writers of "evidences" as to the uniform citation of the canonical gospels from the earliest times, we have here a consecutive account of the earliest evangelical writings beyond the limits of the Canon,—the Gospel of the Hebrews, of Marcion, Justin's Apostolical "Memorabilia," Tatian's Monatessaron, the Gospels of the Apostolical Fathers; in short, of that multifarious uncanonical literature which Jerome alludes to as too long to recapitulate, and whose exact relation to the Canon forms one of the chief objects of modern criticism. Here, too, the historical view of the Canon, as shewn in the real circumstances of its formation, is openly substituted for the dogmatical. Semler had generally alluded to its slow uncertain growth;2 Eichhorn more particularly follows out the stages of its

Porteus'

1 "There are numberless quotations from every part of the New Testament by Christian writers, from the earliest ages down to the present, all which substantially agree with the present text of the sacred writings.' Evidences, p. 29. Such are the fictions which are generally thought good enough even at the present day for the purposes of "religious education!"

2 Tüb. Journal, ix. 527.

« AnteriorContinuar »